Deportations of Venezuelans from South Texas are halted under the Alien Enemies Act by a judge's order.
Rewritten Article:
JUDGE NIXES TRUMP'S DEPORTATION LAW FOR VENEZUELANS
In a shocking ruling, a federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from using an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelans from South Texas, calling the president's use of the law "unlawful."
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. (Trump's own appointment in 2018) took a stand against the administration's claims that Venezuelan gang members were invading the U.S. Rodriguez stated he wouldn't obstruct the government's right to deport people who are in the country illegally, but he wouldn't allow them to rely on the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to do so.
"The judge doesn't make that call, whether the AEA can be employed against invading people," Vice President JD Vance (interview on Fox News) argued, defending the administration's stance.
The ruling is the first to challenge the government's use of the AEA, a law that hasn't been invoked since the War of 1812, except during World Wars I and II. The AEA has only been used three times in U.S. history. In World War II, it was used to intern Japanese-Americans[1][2].
The Trump administration attempted to use the AEA to deport Venezuelans linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, but Democratic Representative Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., made it clear that the judge's decision "confirmed what we all knew: The Trump administration illegally used the AEA to deport people without due process."
If the administration chooses to appeal the ruling, it will be sent to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a known conservative court that has ruled against both the Obama and Biden administrations in immigration matters[3]. The losing side could then file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, but any decision would likely take months to resolve.
The enraged administration plans to "aggressively appeal" the ruling, with Vice President JD Vance promising they would "challenge any ruling that limits the president's deportation power." The Supreme Court already held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given "reasonable time" to contest their removal from the country[4].
Additional Insights:- Human rights organizations argue that the AEA, due to its lack of safeguards, is outdated and incompatible with international law[3].- The Alien Enemies Act (AEA) pertains only to a declared war or organized armed invasion[1][2][4].
[1] "The Alien Enemies Act: A Misguided Law from the Past" (American Civil Liberties Union).[2] "Judge Halts Trump Administration's AEA Deportation Efforts" (NBC News).[3] "Trump's Deportation Power Constrained by Federal Judge" (The New York Times).[4] "U.S. Supreme Court: Migrants Alleged to be Gang Members Must be Given Reasonable Time" (The Washington Post).
- The recent ruling by Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., appointed by President Trump in 2018, prohibits the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelans from South Texas, deeming it unlawful.
- The Trump administration attempted to use the AEA to deport Venezuelans linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, but this move was challenged by Democratic Representative Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., who stated that the judge's decision confirmed the administration's illegal use of the AEA to deport people without due process.
- The Trump administration, showing resistance towards the ruling, plans to "aggressively appeal" it, promising to challenge any ruling that limits the president's deportation power, given that the Supreme Court already held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given "reasonable time" to contest their removal from the country.
- Human rights organizations argue that the AEA, due to its lack of safeguards, is outdated and incompatible with international law, noting that the act pertains only to a declared war or organized armed invasion.
- The Trump administration's use of the AEA in general-news politics has been met with controversy, with many questioning the implementation of such a policy-and-legislation during a time of general-news politics that often requires careful consideration and adherence to due process.
